What make safe USA or RUSSIA to have Nuclear Power other than Iran or do you think no one should not have it?

Answer 1

I'm afraid we're roughly half a century too late on this one. Towards the end of the second world war, the Russians, Americans and British all scrambled to get their hands on the long range rocket technology developed by the Nazi germans and used in such deployment as the V2 rocket. America got to the site first, and managed to strip much of the underground factory of the working rockets, and thus from this background, and from the scientists who subsequently became neutralised Americans came many of NASA's developments. These, combined with the development of the Manhattan project lead to the Americans developing the Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

The Russians obtained similar rocket technology from the same German source, and they too similarly developed the technology.

However, only the American nation has used a nuclear weapon during a War. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the demonstration of the power that existed at the end of the Second World War, and the devastating strength of nuclear technology has moved on since then.

It was never safe for anyone, be it Germany, America, Russia or the UK to have the technology. However, in a fortunate stroke of luck some might say, the counter-threat posed by the Russians having similar technology to the Americans meant that the 'cold war' took place without either super-power firing nuclear weapons at each other. The process of maintaining "mutually assured destruction" acted as a volatile guarantee that neither side could launch, since they knew what the consequences upon themselves would be. It took decades for de-commissioning and reduction processes to begin, and the US and USSR have through negotiated treaties reduced the number of Nuclear Weapons they maintain.

What's perhaps more worrying is that with the dissolution of the USSR into independent states, many of the missiles in former united soviet republic states are unaccounted for. Equally, much of the nuclear material which is supposed 'controlled' remains unaccounted for, worldwide.

The possession of the means of mass destruction is not safe, irrespective of who is its keeper. To date, the world has been lucky in that only one nation has used such weaponry against another. However, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle and nuclear proliferation is largely inevitable. We live on a volatile planet, quite capable of rendering itself uninhabitable at any moment in time. We've been in that position for over half a century so far. Maybe it's something we just have to live with and we have to be careful who we put in control of the weapons that already exist.

Answer 2

The fewer countries with nuclear weapons the better.

Countries like the USA, the UK, Russia, China, France, India, are considered responsible enough to allow inspections, and to follow rules. If a country like Iran or North Korea has nukes then people get uncomfortable. They do not find their leaders, or their governments to be socially responsible, and could create future problems.

Answer 3

I'm not happy about anyone having Nuclear Power
I trust Russia and the USA a lot more that Iran who are so consumed with hate that their finger would slip on the button should we sell them some wind turbines instead seeing they insist its JUST for energy.

Answer 4

People.....throughout the world...have to learn that THOU SHALT NOT KILL, and that ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS..and obviously this cannot be learned without going through a hell on earth and who knows what the war will do.....and have to do?.
People will learn it.
All men will b e brothers.
There was a time for war. There is a time for .peace. We are in a time called Kosmon..In Kosmon 2 things will happen. 1. After hell on earth War will cease to be. 2. all. people will become vegetarians, It will be a while before this is apparent..
Whaterver should happen will happen about nuclear power. Whatever it takes. This is to to be a beautiful spiritual world. It needs a cleansing now.Probably everyone alive now has a part that needs to be played.

Answer 5

the less people have it the better. Russia got it cause no one could stop them. Same with USA.

USA is a force for good, Iran is a force for bad.

Answer 6

Do you think that Iran having nuclear weapons will make the world
a safer place or a more dangerous place ?
I say much more dangerous and would suggest a pre-emptive
strike against Iran before she builds a nuclear weapon...

Answer 7

It is hard to believe you are comparing the USA with Iran.
The USA is responsible, well-established, democratic republic, which is thankfully in possession of a nuclear deterrent, which keeps unstable lunatics from using such weapons.
I am not thrilled that Russia has such weapons, as they are not stable and can also sell them to others.

Answer 8

Everyone should concern about North Korea's nuclear weapon than Iran...

Answer 9

Nuclear helps keep scungy arabs under control but if they have it,its no longer a deterrent.Could you trust iran to have a world destroying device when they are hell bent on detroying anything and everthing?

Answer 10

it truly is been an prolonged time considering pacifists and left wingers have been in skill in Iran. Iran might have a bomb interior 4 years. i'm hoping we wil have a president with the balls to tell them that if a nuke is going off, everywhere, by using all and assorted, that it is going to likely be presumed to be Iranian and the finished u . s . would be immolated.